2009/9/22 Ujjwol (उज्जवल लामिछाने) ujjwollamichh...@gmail.com:
But I cannot find base.common.gypi in the source tarball of the
chromium. How should I fix this problem ?
Opps, there was a typo on that wiki page which I've now fixed. The
correct location is build/common.gypi.
AGL
Does our default build really depend on -msse2 anymore? Doesn't
seem to on linux...
2009/9/22 Ujjwol (उज्जवल लामिछाने) ujjwollamichh...@gmail.com:
This (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxPackaging) page says
that
For silly reasons our default build depends on SSE, but we don't
The code doesn't lie:
'conditions': [
['branding==Chromium', {
'cflags': [
'-march=pentium4',
'-msse2',
'-mfpmath=sse',
],
}],
],
Oddly, I can still install fine on my pentium III laptop, I think.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
The code doesn't lie:
'conditions': [
['branding==Chromium', {
'cflags': [
'-march=pentium4',
Is there a reason we gate this on branding? The comment doesn't speak
to that at all.
Evan Martin wrote:
The code doesn't lie:
'conditions': [
['branding==Chromium', {
'cflags': [
'-march=pentium4',
'-msse2',
Google Chrome builds without SSE2.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
Oddly, I can still install fine on my pentium III laptop, I think.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
The code doesn't lie:
'conditions': [
It's so our tests pass, I think.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Mark Mentovai m...@chromium.org wrote:
Is there a reason we gate this on branding? The comment doesn't speak
to that at all.
Evan Martin wrote:
The code doesn't lie:
'conditions': [
Dan Kegel wrote:
It's so our tests pass, I think.
We don't have tests for nothing.
If a test exposes a case where something requires 53/64-bit IEEE
double precision as opposed to 64/80-bit double extended, and we're
changing our configuration to make tests pass but then releasing in
another
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Mark Mentovai m...@chromium.org wrote:
If a test exposes a case where something requires 53/64-bit IEEE
double precision as opposed to 64/80-bit double extended, and we're
changing our configuration to make tests pass but then releasing in
another
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Mark Mentovai m...@chromium.org wrote:
doing something wrong. Using SSE2 floating-point operations in a
configuration that we test and then using x87 floating-point
operations in a configuration that we release is completely bogus.
The reality of the
Adam Langley wrote:
* x87 doubles are 80-bits in registers and 64-bits in memory.
Depending on the state of the x87 floating point control word.
Can bracket significant test-impacting floating point operations with
fldcw or do something else in that code to force spills to memory?
I'm aware
Basically all Intel CPUs since Pentium 4 (since year 2000) support
SSE2, as well as AMD K8 CPUs. The main group seemingly left out is
Athlons pre-K8 (e.g. the non-64 bit versions available through 2005).
Do we have any sense of how big a market is? Is this basically the
same thing as Win2K where
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Evan Martin e...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Mark Mentovai m...@chromium.org wrote:
If a test exposes a case where something requires 53/64-bit IEEE
double precision as opposed to 64/80-bit double extended, and we're
changing our
13 matches
Mail list logo
